There is no way any jury member is going to vote for the death penalty. They want to sell their books and their movie rights and that means they have to drop anonymity. So they'll play nice and give him life without parole. Then sell their books.

FlashHarry:Shrugging Atlas: Charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Fusion bomb? WMDHome made bomb in a pressure cooker? Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.

yeah... i dunno... i mean there were mass casualties, but this would mean that just about any bomber could be charged with this. not that i'm against it, i guess, but it does seem to lump it in with someone with a dirty bomb or sarin canister or something similar.

This is why there needs to be laws about weapons of -mass- mass destruction, or mass, mass mass destruction. We could get creative with the punishments, what with all the advances in medical tech, too. Imagine, double death penalty. We kill you, bring you back to life to taunt you, then kill you for reals. Also, sterilize your entire family or some shiat.

Let us take this moment to reflect on the death penalty itself, a cherished public institution whose existence means that if a single innocent is ever convicted and executed, we are all accessories to and responsible for that murder. So in this fervor where we joyously hope for the death and rape of a teenage boy, let us take a moment of silence for ourselves, and for the innocent blood we all have on our hands.

To show that we Americans are not some blood thirsty savages who can only be satiated by the icy grip of death.

You might be showing yourself (and the rest of the 1st world countries) that, but your enemies see only weakness. You don't even have the stones to execute a murderer of children. They will respect you even less than they already do. Of course, if you do kill him, you make a martyr out of him.

Yes, I say, lets play by the THIRD WORLD RULES.Kill him, his relatives, & his relatives-relatives... as an EXAMPLE.

Maybe that's why we live in the FIRST WORLD.We follow a set of laws and principles that draws people of principle and intelligence to this country from all over the world.

Last year the state supreme court threw out a confession because police falsely told the guy an unintended death as a result of arson would not be considered murder. In fact it is a standard example of felony murder.

AngryJailhouseFistfark:But what if he's a Sovereign Citizen, not subject to the Crown or some phoney-baloney Imperial Navy of the British Colonies laws? He should be free to not pay taxes and do as he pleases without Federal harassment, seems to me.

FlashHarry:plus, he'll likely get the DP if he's convicted on federal charges, yes?

The charges make him death penalty eligible, yes. But, the government still needs to make a decision before any trial whether it will seek the death penalty. And then the jury, assuming he is found guilty, would need to decide whether or not to impose it.

The decision on whether to even seek the death penalty is not made lightly, and the defense is permitted to try and convince the government not to do so. I'm not sure there is anything that could get the government to only seek life imprisonment, but if he were to cooperate and freely offer any information he had about anyone else, it could impact that decision (I haven't heard yet what, if anything, of substance he said while being questioned).

I would suspect that death will be sought based on the crime and the manhunt. But again, if there was some really compelling argument (I have no reason to think there is but I know a lot of people have been speculating about it) that this kid was completely brainwashed by the older brother, it is not inconceivable that a jury could decide he is guilty but doesn't deserve death.

The Southern Dandy:Well, there's a helluva lot more evidence that this was motivated by religion, than there is evidence that God exists.

i was just wondering if it was confirmed - if they'd found a manifesto or anything. i know the older brother was religious, but the younger one just seems like he was a regular american kid and not a little johnny jihadi.

Nutsac_Jim:Since he is heavily sedated, cant his defense use that as any statement made by him can be tossed out since he wasnt all the way there when read is rights?

A lot of people in and outside the media are missing this point - Miranda is only necessary if you want to use the suspect's testimony in court. You can ask them questions as long as you want without mirandizing. A case is not thrown out of court if there was no Miranda reading, only the evidence gathered from the questioning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning#Consequences_of_violatio n

In this case there (appears) to be sufficient evidence that he would go to jail without ever being read

Antimatter: Interesting choice of charges. I'd expected 3-4 counts of murder, several dozen counts of attempted murder or assault with a deadly weapon, and the usual mismash of property destruction, explosives, yatta yatta.

I had the same reaction. Then I decided they would save the piling-on for indictment. For now they just need at least one charge to support holding him in custody, and it may be desirable to have a death-eligible charge for procedural reasons. If he doesn't make a deal you can expect a foot high list of charges after a grand jury takes the case.

whenIsayGO:The weirdest thing about all this is the definition of WMD. The Iraq War made it sound like it's limited to nukes, bio/chem weapons -- the kind of things that can kill millions in a single attack. Not a pot with some gunpowder and nails in it.

Now we need a new word for the things that can kill more people than conventional weapons.

Let me help you and some other people that can't figure this out.

There is US law and there is International Law. WMDs are categorized differently under each law. Under International Law they are categorized as Nuclear, Biological or Chemical. US law has a broader definition. Same term, two different definitions because of what the laws are meant to prevent.

FlashHarry:Nabb1: Iam opposed to the death penalty, but it is just a fact of life that some people need killin'.

yeah, that pretty much sums up my position too.

my main gripe against the DP is that it is irreversible.

That, of course, and it is hideously expensive and has never really been shown to have any true deterrent effect. Most people who get executed in this day and age, of course, are horrible people who deserved their fate, but there have been some who did not deserve it. I just can't justify an institution that could execute the innocent.

You and I have been agreeing a lot the past few days. People are going to start talking.

Last year the state supreme court threw out a confession because police falsely told the guy an unintended death as a result of arson would not be considered murder. In fact it is a standard example of felony murder.

For federal law, I'd be inclined to agree but I don't know.

Who needs a confession though? They probably have his fingerprints all over some bombs.

Fusion bomb? WMDHome made bomb in a pressure cooker? Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.

A weapon of mass destruction has specific legal definition in the US criminal code. See

18 USC § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction

.......(2)the term "weapon of mass destruction" means-(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921

18 USC § 921 - Definitions

........

(4)The term "destructive device" means-(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas-(i) bomb,(ii) grenade,(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,(v) mine, or(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

FlashHarry:The Southern Dandy: Well, there's a helluva lot more evidence that this was motivated by religion, than there is evidence that God exists.

i was just wondering if it was confirmed - if they'd found a manifesto or anything. i know the older brother was religious, but the younger one just seems like he was a regular american kid and not a little johnny jihadi.

I think he's probably just a kid that looked up to his older brother, and unfortunately, blindly followed his older brother into the whackiness.

FlashHarry:Shrugging Atlas: Charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Fusion bomb? WMDHome made bomb in a pressure cooker? Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.

yeah... i dunno... i mean there were mass casualties, but this would mean that just about any bomber could be charged with this. not that i'm against it, i guess, but it does seem to lump it in with someone with a dirty bomb or sarin canister or something similar.

Three people died. Not to dismiss the importance of the incident or to belittle the importance of the lives lost, but it is looking as if he would have got less jail time if he simply bought a gun and shot four people to death.

/not trying to troll here, sorry if it comes off that way//just that this may be the most pathetic "terrorist" attack in the history of terrorist attacks

NostroZ:Galloping Galoshes: NostroZ: I think it would be a bigger show compassion to not kill him.

To show that we Americans are not some blood thirsty savages who can only be satiated by the icy grip of death.

You might be showing yourself (and the rest of the 1st world countries) that, but your enemies see only weakness. You don't even have the stones to execute a murderer of children. They will respect you even less than they already do. Of course, if you do kill him, you make a martyr out of him.

Yes, I say, lets play by the THIRD WORLD RULES.Kill him, his relatives, & his relatives-relatives... as an EXAMPLE.

Maybe that's why we live in the FIRST WORLD.We follow a set of laws and principles that draws people of principle and intelligence to this country from all over the world.

Perhaps you missed my point: either action has a downside. If your enemy does not respect you, he is more likely to attack you. On the other hand, if you make a martyr, his actions can be used to inspire further attacks.

Nabb1:That, of course, and it is hideously expensive and has never really been shown to have any true deterrent effect. Most people who get executed in this day and age, of course, are horrible people who deserved their fate, but there have been some who did not deserve it. I just can't justify an institution that could execute the innocent.

You and I have been agreeing a lot the past few days. People are going to start talking.

FlashHarry:The Southern Dandy: Well, there's a helluva lot more evidence that this was motivated by religion, than there is evidence that God exists.

i was just wondering if it was confirmed - if they'd found a manifesto or anything. i know the older brother was religious, but the younger one just seems like he was a regular american kid and not a little johnny jihadi.

I read his Twitter feed a few days ago, and in recent weeks, some religious stuff started to pop up. I seem to recall his friends said something about it, too. I don't think he was in as deep as his brother, but if he wasn't, then he's just a cold-blooded psycho to sign on to something like this for no other reason than to kill.

Electrify:FlashHarry: Shrugging Atlas: Charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Fusion bomb? WMDHome made bomb in a pressure cooker? Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.

yeah... i dunno... i mean there were mass casualties, but this would mean that just about any bomber could be charged with this. not that i'm against it, i guess, but it does seem to lump it in with someone with a dirty bomb or sarin canister or something similar.

Three people died. Not to dismiss the importance of the incident or to belittle the importance of the lives lost, but it is looking as if he would have got less jail time if he simply bought a gun and shot four people to death.

/not trying to troll here, sorry if it comes off that way//just that this may be the most pathetic "terrorist" attack in the history of terrorist attacks

And, you know, the police officer they killed. And the hundred plus injured including people missing arms and legs, locking down the city of Boston for a day.

Electrify:FlashHarry: Shrugging Atlas: Charged with using a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

Fusion bomb? WMDHome made bomb in a pressure cooker? Doesn't really seem like a WMD to me.

yeah... i dunno... i mean there were mass casualties, but this would mean that just about any bomber could be charged with this. not that i'm against it, i guess, but it does seem to lump it in with someone with a dirty bomb or sarin canister or something similar.

Three people died. Not to dismiss the importance of the incident or to belittle the importance of the lives lost, but it is looking as if he would have got less jail time if he simply bought a gun and shot four people to death.

/not trying to troll here, sorry if it comes off that way//just that this may be the most pathetic "terrorist" attack in the history of terrorist attacks

From a legal/constitutional perspective, it is the difference between a criminal act, and an act of war.As a criminal act, the accused will get the trial in a criminal court with the various rights and presumptions that go with that.If it were considered an act of war, he would be tried by a military tribunal, where the rules are similar but a little tighter regarding some of the protections given to the accused.

A fair amount of the clamor on both sides has to do with how we define an act of war. Those of you who think "Americans on American soil: never classifiable an act of war", sit down, relax, get a drink, and then read the examples.

If these two had used their bombs and guns solely to rob a check cashing place: criminal act.If these two had climbed in a Panzer-2050 tank, provided by Future Zombie Hitler, and announced over the radio that they were going to unload their main gun into the White House and Capitol Building to overthrow the US Government: act of war.

One easy thing about these is that in the second example, the U.S. Military could use force to stop them without the President's specific authorization. The first example, not so much.Now, in between the two, specifically at Boston, we start looking at a greyer area. One where both sides can make arguable claims. These two were on a simple murder spree. These two wanted to replace the US Government with Sharia. These two were just violent. These two had a plan to destabilize the authority of the United States. And so on, and so forth.

So, that is why this is even an argument. Constitutional law is such that criminal acts, and acts of war are treated differently, because we can't just send F-16s to bomb Bernie Madoff's house, and Future Zombie Hitler will eat the brains of the guy that tries to serve a warrant in his floating pleasure palace.

Electrify:Three people died. Not to dismiss the importance of the incident or to belittle the importance of the lives lost, but it is looking as if he would have got less jail time if he simply bought a gun and shot four people to death.

casualties

doesn't imply just deaths. i was referring to the deaths and the hundreds wounded - including many who lost limbs.